2018-12-05

The Speaker: It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Hochelaga.
[Members sang the national anthem]
Hon. Hunter Tootoo (Nunavut, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, 
 [Member spoke in Cree] 
 [English] 
Last week, in response to my question, the Prime Minister said that all parties that are supposed to be at the table for the two Dene treaties are at the table. He was wrong.
Since 1975, every modern land claims agreement in Canada has involved the province or territory where the lands in question are located. Further, every modern land claims agreement in Canada's northern territories has involved three parties: the indigenous group, Canada and the government of the territory where the agreement is to operate.
 The two Dene treaties affect jurisdictional authority and will result in financial obligations to the Government of Nunavut and will also require amendments to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. They cannot be implemented without the consent of the Government of Nunavut.
Given the legal precedents and subsequent jurisprudence, I call on the Government of Canada to do the right thing and immediately invite the Government of Nunavut to the table as a full participant and signatory, where they should be. The treaties will be stronger for it.
International Volunteer DayMr. Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate International Volunteer Day and the important contribution volunteers make to our communities.
Volunteers are kind and caring people who give their time to support causes they believe in. Volunteers help make our society stronger, more inclusive and more prosperous.
I would like to give some of the volunteers in my riding a big hand for their remarkable dedication and their involvement in our community: Dmjy Théodore, Geri MacDonald, Naomi Panetta, Justin Boisvert, Vincent Cammisano, Gian-Andrea Lacombe, Silvio De Cicco, Lisa Muzzo, Line Boudreault, Elisa Verillo, Saïda Seddiki, Robert Alexandre and Nick Colasurdo.
On this International Volunteer Day, I thank them for giving their time to important causes and for the contributions they make every day. I thank them from the bottom of my heart.
Gate 3:16 Outreach CentreMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during the Christmas season it is important to remember the organizations that go above and beyond to help those who need it most. In my community of Oshawa, we are blessed to have the Gate 3:16 Outreach Centre, led by Betty and her outstanding team of staff and volunteers. 
Since 1990, they have offered hot meals, warm showers, laundry services and much more to anyone in need. Having spoken with its patrons over the years, I know how valuable their safe and friendly space is to many in my community.
Earlier this year, they found themselves without a physical location, and they had to suspend services. I am extremely proud to say that they have found a new home and are back to serving the community. I stopped by last week to donate some supplies and had the opportunity to speak with their general manager, Rita. She tells me that they are thrilled with the new space and are excited to be back working with their patrons.
On behalf of all residents of Oshawa, I extend my sincere thanks to the team at Gate 3:16 and wish them every success in their location, as well as a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Thaddeus DreherMr. Nick Whalen (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, Thaddeus Dreher, turned 100 years old on August 23. Thaddeus was born in Poland just before the First World War. He was an army officer and was studying engineering when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. 
After the war, his brothers went to work for the RCMP in Ottawa and one of them became the owner of a bakery in Montreal. They convinced him that Canada was the best country in the world. His work as a civil engineer took him all over the world, and his talent for languages gave him a clear advantage. He spoke Polish, Russian, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English, French and a bit of Thai.
Suree, his wife of 54 years who is Thai, agrees that the secret to a long life is optimism and courage in the face of adversity and change.
Thaddeus, happy 100th birthday. You are an inspiration to us all.
The EconomyMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada is losing more and more good-paying jobs. This past week was particularly bad in terms of job losses. In our region, it was the announcement by HudBay that it is closing the Flin Flon mining operation by 2021. This follows the closure of the smelter and the refinery in Thompson earlier this year. Nationally, we have seen the closure of the Oshawa GM plant.
We are seeing the hollowing out of the Canadian economy in key sectors, like manufacturing and the resource sector. While our communities have been working hard to diversify and find other job opportunities, there can be no doubt that the loss of these good-paying jobs is devastating.
Governments need to be there for us in tough times. They need to be there for Canadians, and the federal government has been largely absent. Despite the fact that the Flin Flon operation is directly under federal jurisdiction, the government has done nothing.
As the member of Parliament for our region, I believe that governments have to be engaged. The federal government must be at the table. These are tough times for northern communities and communities across the country. Our region and our country deserves better.
The FrancophonieMr. Peter Fragiskatos (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the importance of the French language. It is one of Canada's founding languages and part of our identity. I am so convinced that our great country is stronger for having adopted bilingualism that after I was elected to represent a region in Ontario where the majority of people are anglophone, I decided to learn French. Today, I am reaffirming my commitment to always promote the French language and culture. I want to sincerely thank the francophone community of London for working tirelessly to preserve its culture.
Thank you for your historic resistance to Doug Ford's policies.
HanukkahHon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to pay tribute to the Jewish people and the celebration of Hanukkah. The word “Hanukkah” is Hebrew for dedication. The holiday commemorates the festival of lights, when one day's supply of olive oil miraculously lasted for eight days during the dedication of the second Jewish temple in Jerusalem.
 Last Sunday, I was honoured to be asked by Rabbi Zaltzman to light the first candle on the menorah in Queen Victoria Park in Niagara Falls. At a time when people of faith are being persecuted around the world, celebrating our heritage and religions is critical. I would like to thank Rabbi Zaltzman, from Chabad in the Niagara region, for putting together this event each year.
 As the word Hanukkah denotes dedication, may we dedicate ourselves to ensuring religious freedom in Canada and around the world. I would like to take this opportunity to wish a happy Hanukkah to my colleagues in this House and across our nation. 
JusticeMr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the gala of the Langley Community Justice Initiatives Association. This community organization provides conflict resolution programs and services, which have achieved excellent results. It is a pioneer in this area.
Marlyn Ferguson told her story of courage and transformation after her son was murdered. I was moved to hear her say that the association helped her meet with three of the people responsible for the death of her son. Her experience shows the power of restorative justice and the results that can be achieved with this approach. I would like to thank her very much for telling her story.
I would also like to thank the association for the important work it does in our community.
The FrancophonieMr. Dan Vandal (Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, I rallied with my francophone community at the former St. Boniface city hall to show our solidarity with the Franco-Ontarian community. More than 200 attended. We were all united, young and old, established and new arrivals, francophones and francophiles, in solidarity with this community.
This rally, primarily organized by the Conseil jeunesse provincial and the students' association at the Université de Saint-Boniface, is a testament to the engagement of our Franco-Manitoban youth.
The torch has been passed from those who fought for our rights in the 1980s to the next generation, which is just as determined. More are joining in. Their voice is strong and diverse. The future of our Manitoban and Canadian francophonie looks bright in the hands of these youth. 
ImmigrationMr. Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to put on record my opposition to signing the United Nations Global Compact for Migration. We currently have an issue at our borders with an unprecedented number of asylum seekers entering illegally. We recently learned that it costs taxpayers about $34,000 for each migrant to be processed, and this cost is projected to rise as more people arrive in this manner and the system becomes backlogged.
 The current border crisis is expected to cost taxpayers over $1 billion by 2020, which does not include costs incurred by the provinces. The costs associated with signing and implementing this global compact are unknown right now. Signing this compact could put an even larger burden on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. 
I support a safe and orderly immigration system and believe that Canada must be in control of our borders. Signing the UN global compact does not give us control. I strongly urge the government to reconsider committing our country to this global compact.
International Day of Persons with DisabilitiesHon. Kent Hehr (Calgary Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Monday was the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. We celebrate the contributions that persons with disabilities made to our society. 
We know that many people continue to face numerous barriers to inclusion. That is why our government introduced the accessible Canada act, to transform the way the government and federally regulated sectors remove barriers to accessibility in Calgary and across Canada.
Violence Against WomenMs. Anju Dhillon (Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 1989, 14 women were killed and another 10 were injured at the École polytechnique de Montréal, simply for being women. 
Gender-based violence continues to plague our society to this day. It can take many different forms, including physical, sexual or online violence, and can manifest in insidious ways, through actions intended to maintain a hold over someone, such as defamation, coercion and criminal harassment. All this can cause psychological harm to victims. 
Gender-based violence is an issue that our government cares deeply about. We are working tirelessly to combat this scourge. Every December 6, we commemorate the 14 women who were so cruelly snatched away from their loved ones, and we condemn the tragic consequences of gender-based violence.
Government PoliciesMr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are breathing a sigh of relief, knowing that the Liberal Statistics Canada data grab has been held at bay. Canadians rose up against this out-of-touch Liberal scheme to secretly access their personal financial records, and our Conservative team listened to them. We stood up for the privacy rights of Canadians and we stood up for the principle that government does not demand Canadians' information, it asks Canadians for permission for their information. 
The Liberals did not listen. They condescendingly accused concerned Canadians of being fearmongers and digital neanderthals. Well, Canadians won and the out-of-touch Liberal elites lost. The Conservatives will hold the Liberals accountable, and we will remain vigilant in defending Canadians from this intrusive policy.
Étienne-Brûlé High SchoolMr. Frank Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was born in Montreal, and even though I come from an anglophone family my parents wanted me to learn French, so they sent me to a French school.
Then, when we moved to Toronto, my parents insisted that I continue my studies in French. I went to the only French-language public high school in the greater Toronto area, the École secondaire Étienne-Brûlé, which opened its doors after a long battle fought by the Franco-Ontarian community. Construction was completed in 1973, three years before I began going to school there. 
In my day, students came from Oshawa, Burlington, Orangeville and other communities. We were a proud mix of ethnic groups, which was clearly reflected in our school's motto, “unity in diversity”. We were all proud to be Franco-Ontarians.
Gender-based ViolenceMs. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the 16 days of action to end violence against women go on, women's organizations across Canada still struggle to pay their staff and keep their doors open. Every day, the Vancouver Island University Students' Union, the Haven Society and the Nanaimo Women's Resource Centre in Nanaimo—Ladysmith that I represent work to keep women safe. Every day they turn women away. Can members imagine a woman who is fleeing domestic violence and has the bravery to ask for help, but there is no room at the inn? These groups tell us that if we are going to protect women, we have to fund the groups' core operations. 
The Liberals say they want to end violence against women. They are willing to invest in infrastructure for energy companies. Why not invest in the vital life-saving infrastructure that women's organizations across this country provide? Actions matter.
Government PoliciesMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the supercilious Liberal government bragged about letting the sun shine in, but we are sitting here in the dark dealing with even more of their secrecy and hypocrisy.
 The Liberals are saddling our air force with flying pieces of Australian scrap metal. They are claiming that is because of some non-existent capability gap.
 They are tarnishing the reputation of a distinguished vice-admiral and dragging him through a criminal trial, but they spent months refusing to hand over crucial documents for that same trial. The information the public is getting about Vice-Admiral Norman's case is not from this so-called open and transparent government, it is from Vice-Admiral Norman's lawyer. Thanks to her, we now know that a Privy Council investigation reports at least 73 people knew about the cabinet discussions, including nine cabinet ministers and two reporters.
 The Liberal government must stop this needless witch hunt. If they really want to find the source of their problems, all they have to do is look around their own cabinet table.
Des Pionniers Elementary SchoolMrs. Alaina Lockhart (Fundy Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last month, I had the opportunity to welcome my neighbour to the north, the hon. Minister of Health, to École des Pionniers in Quispamsis.
The students and teachers at École des Pionniers are living proof of the vitality of francophone minority communities in Fundy Royal and across Canada. As the only French-language elementary school in Fundy Royal, École des Pionniers gives our children the opportunity to learn French in a positive environment.
The minister and I reiterated our commitment to them, and they know that their federal government will always support them and their language rights.
I would like to thank the principal, staff and students at École des Pionniers for their different perspectives and their warm welcome.
We support Franco-Ontarians and linguistic minorities across Canada.

Oral Questions
Natural ResourcesHon. Andrew Scheer (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister attempted to defend his natural resource minister's ridiculous claim that the court killed the northern gateway pipeline, but the facts are clear. Just like in the ruling for Trans Mountain, the judge provided a clear path forward for northern gateway, saying that this process “need not take long”, but the Prime Minister ignored that ruling and killed northern gateway. Why? Because he has been fighting against it for years.
If the Prime Minister does not want to accept responsibility for northern gateway being ended, will he commit today to reviving it and completing the process?
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives spent a decade failing to get Canadian oil to new markets. On northern gateway, the Federal Court of Appeal found that the previous government's consultations with indigenous peoples “fell well short of the mark”. The Conservatives seem to think that the duty to consult is only a suggestion, not a constitutional obligation. They had 10 years to get the job done and they failed. They failed for 10 years. 
We are moving forward on expanding to global markets, building pipeline capacity in the right way.
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, four major pipeline projects were approved by the previous government: Enbridge Alberta Clipper, the TransCanada Keystone, Kinder Morgan's Anchor Loop and Enbridge Line 9B reversal. All these projects were approved and, here is the kicker, built under the previous Conservative government. 
The Trans Mountain expansion will not access the deepwater ports that northern gateway would. Aboriginal communities were going to be partners in the beneficiaries from that project. Why did the Prime Minister kill the northern gateway project?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again, a zero per cent increase in pipeline capacity to new markets under 10 years of Conservative government for the very simple reason that they did not understand that the way to build big projects is to work with indigenous peoples in full respect and partnership, to work with environmental scientists and concerned citizens to demonstrate it is being done in the right way. They failed for 10 years and now they double down on an approach that failed the oil industry and failed Canadians.
Prime Minister’s Trip to IndiaAndrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, it is this Prime Minister who has failed to get projects built. It is under this Prime Minister's watch that all the major pipeline proponents in this country have left and are building projects in the United States, and in the case of Kinder Morgan, with the $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money that he gave them to get out of town with.
Every time we ask the Prime Minister questions about his disastrous trip to India, he always replies there is nothing to worry about because there is no problem. Canadians know full well that there are problems.
Will the Prime Minister finally show some respect for Canadians and disclose the entire guest list for his events during his trip to India?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have always shown our commitment to openness and transparency on the international stage.
I want to once again congratulate the members of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians for the incredible work they have done. We accept their recommendations and we will continue to respect the great work they do.
Member for Brampton EastAndrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, major questions have been raised about the role of the innovation minister and the member for Brampton East with respect to a questionable real estate deal. The allegations also involve Liberal Party donors, a former Liberal Party riding president and, of course, the Prime Minister's disastrous trip to India. 
Can the Prime Minister confirm whether his innovation minister has had any contact with any law enforcement agency or anyone in their offices, including the Prime Minister's Office, regarding any of the allegations surrounding the member for Brampton East?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for folks watching question period, let me explain parliamentary privilege. It allows members of Parliament to say things in this House without fear of prosecution or legal consequences. It is a foundation of an important element of what we do in this House. 
One of the ways people at home who are keeping score can note whether something is serious or not is whether members opposite will repeat what they say in the House outside the House.
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, and for the folks at home, what the Prime Minister is trying to do is make it seem that what is being said inside the House has not already been said outside of the House, including by major media reports.
However, this is what the Prime Minister always tries to do: there is nothing to see here and nothing has been done wrong. He tried to do that with his illegal vacation to billionaire island, when the finance minister conveniently forgot about the French villa and when one his ministers awarded a lucrative contract to a Liberal friend.
I would be happy to ask the exact same questions outside the chamber. Will the Prime Minister stand beside me and finally answer them?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, again, for people watching Question Period, they notice that the opposition's job is to ask questions, to critique government policy, to make sure that what we do is exactly right for Canadians and to challenge us on it. That is the role of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
 Unfortunately, the current opposition tends to spend its time making innuendos, personal attacks and drive-by smear jobs that seem to consist of political debate. We are happy to exchange on ideas and to argue rigorously why our plan is right.
Indigenous AffairsMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Canadians will condemn violence against women. This violence is always unacceptable, but for some communities it is part of everyday life.
Over the past 30 years, more than 1,200 indigenous women have been murdered or reported missing. Forty mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts and cousins disappear every year. Safety and the right to justice for indigenous women must be a priority.
Does the government plan to establish an ambitious national action plan to address violence against indigenous women?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his hard work. 
We are determined to put an end to the national tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The mandate of the independent commission is clear: families must be at the centre of its work. We have committed to giving families the answers they have long been looking for about the institutional failures that resulted in this tragedy.
We are also taking immediate action with investments in women's shelters, housing, education, the reform of child services and safety on the Highway of Tears.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, holding consultations and writing reports is a good step, but the Liberals need to realize that it is just the first of many steps for the government.
Indigenous women are three times more likely to suffer physical or sexual abuse than non-indigenous women. The government has to stop considering them as second-class citizens and come up with a national plan to end violence against indigenous women. 
Will the government commit to implementing all the recommendations made by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, yes, and we can even say that we are in the process of following up on the interim report and implementing the recommendations.
We must not wait to combat violence against women and girls, especially in indigenous communities. We know that the national housing strategy helps women who would otherwise have to return to an abusive relationship or turn to the street.
Since 2015, we have created more than 4,800 shelter spaces. We know that there is a lot more work to do and we will keep at it.
Ms. Sheri Benson (Saskatoon West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I proudly joined our leader, Jagmeet Singh, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the PSAC national indigenous peoples' circle to stand in solidarity with all indigenous women and girls who have been victims or survivors of violence. We must ensure that the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls leads to justice and healing.
Will the Prime Minister agree to meet with the national indigenous peoples' circle to receive their petitions on the inquiry?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to ending the ongoing national tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The independent commission's mandate is clear that families must be at the centre of its work. We are committed to getting the answers, which have been about the systemic and institutional failures that have led to this tragedy.
 In addition to our substantive response to the inquiry's interim report, we are also taking immediate action with investments in women's shelters, housing, education, reform of child welfare and safety on the Highway of Tears.
Sheri Benson: Mr. Speaker we do indeed need to make sure that the families of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls are at the centre of this inquiry and are being heard, informed and supported throughout the process.
 The missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry must lead to change. Will the Liberal government commit now to fully implementing all the inquiry's recommendations?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we launched a national public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls because we saw there was a need for leadership. For too long it had not moved forward. We did that because we know we needed healing for the families, we needed justice for the victims and we needed to put an end to this ongoing national tragedy.
 That is why we extended the time and mandate of the inquiry to ensure that all families could be heard. We gave it the extra funding it requested. We are looking forward to seeing the results of the important work it is doing. At the same time, we are not waiting for that result, to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Milton.
EthicsHon. Lisa Raitt (Milton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Brampton's chief of staff gave a confidential document regarding a piece of land that the city wanted to purchase from the province to the minister and another member of the Liberal caucus. Now, a private consortium called Goreway Heaven actually purchased the land for virtually the same price that was disclosed to the minister and the MP. The land was resold to the city at a tidy profit of 33%, and city council has asked the RCMP to investigate.
Folks at home may wonder this. Why did a member of the Prime Minister's cabinet invite a direct—
The Speaker: The hon. Prime Minister.
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is the opposition's responsibility to oppose, to challenge a government and to disagree on positions of policy. Unfortunately, the members opposite choose to make personal attacks and drive-by smears.
 The fact is that for those at home who want to see whether there is any substance to these at all, they can simply watch whether the members opposite will repeat those allegations outside of the House where they are not protected by parliamentary immunity.
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, the company Goreway Heaven had 10 directors on it. Five of those directors are known major contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada. As well, one of those directors was invited to be part of the Prime Minister's delegation to India, not more than one month after the company collected a 33% hike in the property that it had purchased, which, miraculously, resembled the price that was disclosed to the minister.
 All we want to know from the Prime Minister is which member of Parliament invited that gentleman on the trip.
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, like I said, an opposition's job is to oppose. However, the fact is that the Conservatives are not asking us about the economy and they are not asking us about the challenges faced by Alberta right now. They are simply choosing to make the same kinds of personal attacks and smear jobs that characterize 10 years of Stephen Harper's Conservative leadership.
 We see that the Conservatives actually have no new approach to governing the country and no alternative proposal for economic growth. They are still stuck in the same old approach that Canadians rejected soundly in 2015.
Mr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a director from a company with ties to the Liberals, notably the Minister of Innovation, made a really good deal. He bought land from the Ontario government for $3.3 million and sold it a back a few months later for $4.4 million. Talk about a deal. It is so questionable that the City of Brampton asked the RCMP to investigate.
Now that we know this director went on the Prime Minister's disastrous trip to India, we would like to know who invited him.
Justin Trudeau:  Mr. Speaker, the opposition's responsibility is to oppose, to ask difficult questions and to challenge what the government is doing.
Unfortunately, this Conservative opposition is still stuck in its old Stephen Harper ways, choosing to rely on personal attacks, innuendoes, and smears against government members. The opposition could be asking questions about our record for economic growth, which is excellent, or about the unemployment rate, which is at a 40-year low. 
Alain Rayes: Mr. Speaker, allow me to refresh the Prime Minister's memory.
This administrator, Bhagwan Grewal, is a former Liberal association president. He is a Liberal Party donor. He went on the India trip and even took the time to have his picture taken with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development so he could keep a nice souvenir of that great trip to India.
If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, when will he present the official list of all his VIP guests who were with him on his trip to India, which was paid for by Canadian taxpayers?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is an easy way for Canadians to see whether the Conservatives are actually asking real questions or going after real facts. All they have to do is check whether the members opposite are able to repeat outside the House of Commons the allegations they are making here under the protection of parliamentary privilege.
If they will not repeat those allegations, then Canadians will know that these are baseless attacks, personal attacks, to try to distract from the fact that we are—
Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we can tell when the Liberals are in trouble when they start threatening law suits and refusing to answer even simple questions.
We now know that the RCMP investigation in Brampton involves Goreway Heaven, a company with close ties to the Liberal Party. One of its directors, Baghwan Grewal, a former Liberal riding president, got a prime ticket to the Prime Minister's catastrophic trip to India.
Could the Prime Minister tell Canadians who extended the invitation to Mr. Grewal? Was it the Liberal member for Brampton East, the innovation minister, or was it the Prime Minister's own office who invited him to come along?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we know the Conservative Party is in trouble when it falls back on the same failed approach of personal attacks and smears that characterized it through 10 years of Stephen Harper, 10 years of low job creation and the worst economic growth since the Great Depression.
What we actually have now is people trying to dig up stories around a trip that happened a year and a half ago as a way of attacking and smearing the government, because they have nothing to say on our economic growth, on job creation, on the way we are delivering for Canadians—
The Speaker: Order, please. As members know, each side gets its turn. The idea is that we will hear things we do not like, but we listen and do not interrupt.
The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we know the Prime Minister gets a little jumpy when we ask about Liberal ethics, being the only Prime Minister in Canadian history who has ever been found guilty of breaking the ethics rules.
We know it was the Prime Minister's office who invited Jaspal Atwal, a convicted terrorist, to join him on the disastrous India trip. The guest list for that also included Baghwan Grewal, a Liberal operative whose company is now under RCMP investigation.
Will the Prime Minister give the RCMP all the documents relating to Mr. Grewal's involvement in the India trip, or will the cover-up continue?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, let me remind folks that we put in place the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, comprised of members from all parties in the House and the Senate, so it could exactly look in and weigh in on these important and delicate matters.
When it comes to the matter of national security in the country, we should have an oversight committee that can do that. That is why we went and created it. We have tremendous respect for the work that it has done and we very much support the important work it does. I just wish more people respected it.
The EconomyMs. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as of January 2019, families will be paying $411 more per year than they did in 2018 for the same basket of groceries.
Why? Because the Liberals failed to protect our supply management system in trade agreements and failed to come up with an ambitious plan to fight climate change. As a result, food will cost more, and people will once again have to pay for the Liberals' lack of leadership.
When will this government understand that its failure to take action is costing Canadians a lot of money?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we introduced a historic plan to fight poverty in Canada and help Canadian families. The Canada child benefit, which the NDP voted against, is delivering more money to nine out of 10 families throughout the country and has lifted 300,000 children out of poverty. By increasing the guaranteed income supplement for seniors and making historic investments in affordable housing across Canada, we are helping families. Still, we know a lot of work remains to be done, and that is what we are doing. 
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister truly does not seem to care about the impact of his policies. The reality is that the price of food in Canada will go up 3.5% next year, with the annual food costs of the average family going up by $411. If people are on a fixed income or working for minimum wage, good luck in getting any type of healthy diet, and this at a time when Canadian families are struggling with the worst debt loads in the industrialized world.
When will the government stop giving big tax breaks to the richest corporations and bring in progressive policies that truly help all Canadians?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the NDP members preoccupied with this, but if they really wanted to fight against poverty in this country, they should have voted for the Canada child benefit that is delivering more money every month to nine out of 10 Canadian families and lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. They should be supporting our plan to invest in infrastructure, including housing to make sure that Canadians have opportunities to afford their homes and to live in safety. They should be supporting our plan, our national housing strategy, that will reduce poverty right across the country. It is unfortunate they stick to the rhetoric instead of siding with us on—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.
Social DevelopmentMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister has been called out for his disparaging remarks. He said that the mass arrival of male workers in Canada's rural areas would have a negative social impact. For several years now, seasonal workers have been travelling to regional areas every year; they keep the economy going and no one complains. Instead of asking how to adjust and adapt, the Prime Minister should be happy that Canada has such a skilled workforce.
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we will always stand up for our workers. We will be there to stimulate economic growth. We had the strongest economic growth in the G7 last year. Our unemployment rate is at a 40-year low. We recognize that the decisions a government makes can have different impacts on different communities and groups. This is something we understand very well. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not seem to understand the impact of the decisions they made as a government or what governments do—
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Lethbridge.
Ms. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to talk about the social impact of male workers, so let us start by looking at him. Let us talk about the social impact he has had by his inaction on the energy file. Let us talk about the massive job losses and the growing rate of suicides in the province of Alberta. Let us talk about parents who cannot afford to cover their mortgage or pay for their children's school supplies. 
Now let us talk about the social impact of hard-working construction men. Let us talk about the fact that these men work hard to provide for their families, that they pay taxes and that they support the local community. 
My question is simple. Why is the Prime Minister insisting on launching a visceral attack against these hard-working men—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the Conservatives failed our country, failed our construction workers, failed the oil patch workers by not being able to create economic growth, by not being able to create the kinds of jobs that were needed and by not being able to get our resources to new markets other than the United States. We are turning that around. We are moving forward on getting resources to markets, done in the right way. We are investing in projects that are growing our economy. We are delivering the lowest unemployment rates in 40 years. That is the work we are—
The Speaker: The hon. opposition House leader.
Hon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to watch the Prime Minister refuse to acknowledge that his arrogant and self-righteous comments are an insult to tens of thousands of Canadians who work in construction in our communities across the country. He sits on his high horse and with innuendo and stereotypes throws stones at these good men and women. 
I want to invite the Prime Minister to apologize. Will he stand in his place, do the right thing and apologize to construction workers across the country?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again, the divisive rhetoric and attacks from the Conservatives serve to undermine the important work that is being done in communities right across this country. 
Strengthening our resilience and to support everyone and make sure that everyone has safe work environments and a positive path to walk on and to live, these are the kinds of things we are going to continue working on. We will continue to recognize the hard work that we need to do to make sure that every Canadian can contribute to building a stronger economy.
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's statement was a clear attack on some of the hardest working and most dedicated Canadians. For the Prime Minister to directly attack these men and insinuate they are dangerous to women in rural communities is unconscionable and diminishes the high office he holds, not to mention the fact that people in broken glass houses should not throw stones. 
Again, will the Prime Minister stand and apologize for what he said to construction workers? 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we take very seriously the responsibility of creating safe workplaces and supporting all people in communities to ensure that they have opportunities to contribute, to find good jobs, and to grow their communities in safety and security. That is something we are going to continue to focus on. 
I will take no lessons from the Conservative Party on how to build safer and more inclusive communities.
EthicsMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to issues of ethics and security, the Prime Minister keeps playing a busted flush, like his bizarre claim that nobody in the PMO knew anything about the fact that the member for Brampton West was being followed by the RCMP here in Parliament, and being mentioned in a wiretap on terrorism financing and money laundering. Here is the the thing. The Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that he is willing to look into whether the MP misused his position on the finance committee to ask leading questions about how to evade a money laundering investigation. 
Let us try this one more time. Is the Prime Minister sticking with his story that there were no adults around who could pay attention to these ethical and security debacles?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there were never any allegations made against any member from Brampton West. 
Small BusinessMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the fall economic update showered big business with tax breaks while doing little for small business. 
I am proud to represent one of Canada's major wine and spirit producing areas. Small craft distillers are proposing a reduction in excise tax for producers of less than 100,000 litres. A similar move in the U.S. dramatically boosted its industry, with each new distillery creating 20 to 100 new jobs. 
Can we count on the government support small business by supporting this proposal?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, over the next two days, I will be sitting down with the premiers in a first ministers meeting. Indeed, it is the third or fourth first ministers meeting. We are doing one every single year, because I believe in pulling together with first ministers so that we can talk about a broad range of issues they want to talk about. However, as a reminder, the previous government did not like first ministers meetings and tended not to hold them at all.
 We are going to be talking about a broad range of things, including lowering barriers so that our beer and wine producers across this country can do better.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I represent the watershed community of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. It is important to those in my riding that we are able to protect wild salmon stocks and restore their habitats. While some species are slowly returning, we are currently lacking the tools and resources to make the changes needed.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what measures this government will take, including through the British Columbia salmon restoration and innovation fund, to help communities such as my own see revitalized salmon populations? 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge for his hard work towards protecting wildlife on the west coast. 
We continue to take real action when it comes to the sustainability of wild Pacific salmon. As we announced in our fall economic statement, we will invest $105 million to create a British Columbia salmon restoration and innovation fund, which includes a contribution to the Pacific salmon endowment fund of $5 million. These investments will support projects focused on salmon stock protection and the habitat restoration of this iconic species.
TelecommunicationsMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our allies have spoken and security experts have spoken. Now, the head of CSIS has spoken. As one of our country's top security officials, he said publicly that hostile states are targeting our 5G network. Communist Chinese laws are clear. Companies in China must “support, co-operate with and collaborate in national intelligence work.” Huawei will be forced to spy on Canada.
Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that our next generation network is secure, and ban Huawei?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this government takes very seriously the safety and protection of Canadians, including in cybersecurity and all related matters. That is why we work with the extraordinary professionals in our security and intelligence services to determine the best way to move forward in growing the Canadian economy, creating new technological innovations and keeping our country and its infrastructures safe from foreign interference. That is a task that our security and intelligence agencies do extraordinarily well and we always support them and accept their recommendations.
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is just one more reason.
The director of CSIS has confirmed that some countries, sponsored by others, were engaged in interference and espionage. Three of the Five Eyes have decided that Huawei must be banned. Our economic, security and military interests are in jeopardy.
Will the Prime Minister commit to banning Huawei from Canada?
Justin Trudeau:  Mr. Speaker, CSIS has a mandate to investigate threats to Canada, and this includes potential long-term threats to our national interest and to Canada's prosperity.
As the director of CSIS pointed out, foreign interference and espionage pose a serious threat to our national interest and our prosperity.
Working closely with our Canadian and international partners, our security agencies continuously monitor threats to national security and take the necessary measures to protect Canadians and safeguard their rights and freedoms.
MarijuanaPierre Paul-Hus: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Prime Minister an easier question
This morning, La Presse reported that Montreal police discovered 977 marijuana plants in a couple's home. While the police was conducting its investigation, this same couple was applying to Health Canada for a permit to grow medical marijuana. The kicker is that they actually got it.
Will the Prime Minister  commit to suspending the licence issued by Health Canada to this couple, which is currently under investigation by the Montreal police?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we legalized marijuana because we know that that is the best way to protect our children and to eliminate the influence of organized crime on the sale of marijuana and the profits it makes from it.
We will certainly ensure that Health Canada and others conduct all the necessary investigations to make good decisions about all licences issued in connection with marijuana.
Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that again is a failure of the Prime Minister to take responsibility.
Last year, Montreal police discovered 977 pot plants and more than $15,000 on the premises of a couple in Montreal. This year, despite the ongoing criminal investigation of that couple, Health Canada gave them a permit to grow more than 600 cannabis plants for medical purposes. Are they kidding? These people are under investigation for illegal cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, but got a licence to grow pot. We cannot make this stuff up.
Will the Prime Minister revoke their licence while the police investigation is ongoing? 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, ensuring the integrity of Canada's legal cannabis production system is a top priority for our government. That is why the regulated system contains multiple measures to protect the health and safety of Canadians and the integrity of the system. These include stringent requirements around physical and personal security, record-keeping, inventory controls and reporting that is verified by Health Canada inspections. 
Our government will never hesitate to take appropriate action to protect the integrity of our legal cannabis system.
Foreign AffairsMs. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since the vile murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Germany and many of our other allies have shown real leadership and stopped selling arms to the Saudi regime. 
Meanwhile, in Canada, it has now been six weeks since the Prime Minister announced that the government was reviewing existing export permits to Saudi Arabia.
Once again, could the Prime Minister update the House on the status of this review?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we continue to review the export permits.
 I can assure the House that when I was in Argentina for the G20 summit, I talked directly with the Saudi prince and told him that we need better answers than we have heard so far on the murder of Mr. Khashoggi.
 I also informed him that we expect him to order a ceasefire in Yemen so that humanitarian aid can reach civilians, who are suffering through an appalling crisis. We have a duty to help this country and to hold the line with Saudi Arabia—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
TransportationMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, more and more people are using active transportation. That is great, but we need to adapt accordingly. 
Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has one of the highest rates of cyclist and pedestrian death in Quebec. From 2006 to 2015, 17 pedestrians and eight cyclists were killed in Rosemont, and 32 cyclists were killed in Montreal. Every time a cyclist dies, a white bicycle is placed at the scene of the accident. I cannot take it any more. My dream is to never have to see another one of those white bicycles.
Can the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport ensure that the recommendations of the task force to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians are implemented? 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we remain committed to improving road safety with the help of our provincial partners.
The Harper Conservatives did absolutely nothing to improve road safety for 10 years. The task force conducted extensive consultations in 2017-18, including round tables in Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax.
Our government, along with the provincial governments, are now looking at practical options to make our roads safer for our pedestrians and cyclists. We will take action.
Government SpendingMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know all too well that the Prime Minister is a man who spends money like water, especially when, as ill luck would have it, he has his iPhone out and starts tweeting.
We all recall that almost two years ago, he sent out a tweet that has cost taxpayers over $1 billion Canadian. This weekend, out of boredom or in an attempt to impress an international celebrity, the Prime Minister announced via Twitter that the Canadian government would be taking $50 million of taxpayers' money and giving it to an initiative backed by one of his famous pals.
Is the Prime Minister aware that Twitter is not a tool for diplomacy or an appropriate venue for announcing public spending?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is funny to see what happens when the Conservatives play politics. They end up opposing funding that will help nearly 340,000 of the world's poorest children in conflict and crisis zones stay in school. It is unfortunate that this is the new Conservative philosophy. Children around the world must have equal access to learning opportunities and quality education. This is something we will always support. It is a shame that the Conservatives are playing politics and opposing this.
Mr. David Sweet (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Yasmine Sherif is the former director of a group that promotes anti-Israel propaganda and the BDS movement. Today, she is the director of Education Cannot Wait, a recent recipient of a $50-million tweeted pledge by the Prime Minister. 
The House has rejected BDS and the xenophobia that it promotes. In 2016, even the Prime Minister recognized that BDS is anti-Semitic. Will the Prime Minister withdraw the funding promise and support the Jewish community and our allies in Israel, or is he more concerned with impressing his celebrity friends? 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are so eager to play politics it puts them in the awkward position of actually opposing funding that will support nearly 340,000 of the world's most vulnerable children in conflict and crisis zones to stay in school. It is unfortunate that this is the new Conservative philosophy.
Children around the world must have equal access to quality education and learning opportunities. This is something we will always support. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have been consistent. They would rather play politics than help the world's most vulnerable. 
Hon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know the Prime Minister loves to swagger on social media, but his tweet to Trevor Noah took the cake. A $50-million donation on Twitter, with some of it going to UNRWA. Speaking of UNRWA, I did not see the Prime Minister tweet about the earlier $50-million donation he made to that agency: “Hey, Trevor Noah, I am donating $50 million to an organization that supports anti-Semitism.” 
Will the Prime Minister withhold his donation to UNRWA until that organization denounces—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister. 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives choose to play political games instead of actually looking at how we are working hard as Canadians to support the world's most vulnerable. The fact that we continue to work with UNRWA allows us to hold it to account to ensure proper accountability on where and how it spends its money, because we know that we need to support the most vulnerable in the world as opposed to continuing to have negative outcomes and funding the wrong sorts of people.
Having Canadian dollars there leads to more accountability, and that is something the entire world values. 
Persons with DisabilitiesMr. Bryan May (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to building a Canada where all people, regardless of their disability, can fully participate and be included in society. We are acting and have undertaken major initiatives to create an inclusive and accessible Canada. As chair of the committee for the status of persons with disabilities, I am extremely proud of our government's work.
Could the Prime Minister please give the House an update on our government's historic progress in this area?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Cambridge for his hard work as chair of the committee for human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities.
We are creating a system whereby barriers are identified and removed proactively so that all Canadians, regardless of their disability, can fully participate in society.
I am proud that last week the House unanimously supported our legislation to ensure a barrier-free Canada. This shows that when we truly work together, we can have a direct and lasting impact on the lives of Canadians.
Automotive IndustryColin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. 
The Prime Minister promised that he would work on a plan to keep jobs in Oshawa, but on Monday, the Liberals voted down our motion to study the impact of the GM closure. Instead of caring, the Prime Minister has still not even picked up the phone to call our mayor to offer his support.
The Prime Minister said that we need to transition away from manufacturing. My community wants to know what he thinks it should transition to.
Will the Prime Minister table his plan for the affected Oshawa workers before Christmas?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are focusing on the workers and their families who are going through a difficult time and need the support of every member in the House.
When I spoke last week to the Premier of Ontario, we agreed that this was a time to put partisanship aside and focus on how to support the workers in Oshawa.
From day one we have taken steps to make Canada's automotive manufacturing sector more globally competitive and innovative. We will always stand firmly behind our automotive sector and workers.
TaxationMr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government of Quebec confirmed that Netflix will start collecting the QST on January 1, 2019, but not the GST, because Ottawa is refusing to change federal laws and make California-based Internet multinationals collect the same GST it makes our businesses collect.
Quebec explicitly asked the federal government to work with it to change the law, but the government flatly refused. No other G7 country is dumb enough to refuse to adapt its tax system to the Internet age.
Can the Prime Minister do better than the Minister of Finance's pathetic attempts to justify the unjustifiable?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we do not want to raise Canadians' taxes. We know that a healthy arts and culture industry is important.
We are investing more than $3.2 billion in our artists and creators. No other G7 country is investing more. We doubled funding for the Canada Council for the Arts. We reinvested $675 million in CBC/Radio-Canada. We gave the Canada Media Fund an extra $172 million. 
We are proud to support our artists and creators, and that is what we will keep doing.
HealthMr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette (Winnipeg Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, problems associated with the use of methamphetamine in my riding and in the prairie provinces are escalating and affecting many people and their families in various communities.
I am proud to say that the city of Winnipeg has launched a task force to look into solutions to deal with the current situation.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister what steps our government is taking, and plans to take, to address methamphetamine use in Canada.
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for his hard work and leadership on this important issue.
We are deeply concerned about the increasing use of methamphetamine, especially in the Prairies.
Our budget 2018 included $150 million to help the provinces and territories improve access to treatment services.
We are encouraged to see that the City of Winnipeg has created a task force and that a Health Canada senior official is part of it.
We will continue working closely with our partners to tackle this scourge.
Public SafetyHon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Friday, the government is required to submit a plan to Parliament on how it plans to bring justice to those who survived genocide at the hands of ISIS terrorists. Never again means taking concrete action to bring those who are complicit in genocide to justice.
Will the Prime Minister table this report on Friday, and will it include concrete action to monitor, gather information to prosecute, and restrict the activities of ISIS terrorists who are in Canada?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to be putting forward that report on Tuesday.
 Our government has proven to be a global leader in welcoming refugees and we have more than doubled Canada's refugee numbers. We have provided a new home to more than 1,400 women and their families who endured the brutality of Daesh, 85% of whom are Yazidi. 
We are not stopping there. We will continue to expedite privately sponsored applications, as well as support family reunification. We have also announced further funding of $20 million in budget 2018 to expand our refugee programming targeting women and girls.
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipMr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Ottawa never questioned the motives of the Government of Quebec when it unilaterally decided to increase immigration levels. The current government in Quebec was elected with a clear mandate to lower immigration levels in 2019. We expect that, once again, Ottawa will not question the will of Quebeckers.
Can the Prime Minister assure Quebec that it has his government's full co-operation to reduce the number of new arrivals, including in the categories chosen by the federal government?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will work with the Government of Quebec to find the best way to proceed.
However, I can tell Canadians and Quebeckers that I have heard their concerns about the labour shortage, I have heard the Conseil du patronat du Québec, and I have heard business owners in Rouyn-Noranda and elsewhere who are struggling with the labour shortage and who recognize that a shortage of immigrants can lead to lower economic growth. We want to create economic growth in Quebec and across Canada, and we will work with the governments involved.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Jinny Sims, Minister of Citizens' Services for the Province of British Columbia, and the Honourable Bruce Ralston, Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology for the Province of British Columbia.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear! 
Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if I could get unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that given Canadians must be in control of their borders and have full sovereignty over their immigration system and refuse to allow the government to continue to cede this control to authorities beyond our borders, and that the government has allowed over 38,000 people to illegally enter Canada from the United States and abuse our asylum system at a cost of over $1 billion, thereby compromising the integrity of our borders' immigration system, the House call on the government to refrain from signing Canada onto the UN global compact for migration, secure our borders and fix the mess the Prime Minister has created.
The Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.

Government Orders
Business of Supply[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 4 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: It being 3:13 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola relating to the business of supply.
The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker: [Chair read text of motion to House]
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Vote #968
The Speaker:  I declare the motion lost.
Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday, November 29, 2018, the next question is on the motion to adopt the Supplementary Estimates (A).
Hon. Bardish Chagger:  moved: 
 That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, except any vote disposed of earlier today, be concurred in. 

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #969
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Appropriation Act No. 3, 2018-19Bardish Chagger: moved for leave to introduce Bill C-90, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time.) 
Bardish Chagger:  moved that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
The Speaker:  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion, the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The chief government whip is rising on a point of order.
Hon. Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting for.
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, with Conservative members voting no.
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote no. You will have to add the vote of the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.
Mario Beaulieu: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.
Hon. Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and we will be voting no.
Ms. Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.
Hunter Tootoo: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to apply and will be voting yes.
Mr. Erin Weir: Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply and will vote no.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #970
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
I do now leave the chair of the House to go into committee of the whole. 
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Bruce Stanton in the chair)
Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, can the President of the Treasury Board or the person representing him confirm that the bill is in its usual form?
Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, the form of this bill is the same as that used in the previous supply period.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 2 agreed to)
 The Chair: 
Shall clause 3 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 3 agreed to)
 The Chair: 
Shall clause 4 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 4 agreed to)
 The Chair: 
Shall clause 5 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 5 agreed to)
 The Chair: 
Shall clause 6 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Clause 6 agreed to)
 The Chair: 
Shall schedule 1 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Schedule 1 agreed to)
 The Chair: 
Shall schedule 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Schedule 2 agreed to)
 The Chair: 
Shall the short title carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Short title agreed to)
 The Chair: 
Shall the preamble carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Preamble agreed to)
 The Chair: 
Shall the title carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Title agreed to)
 The Chair:  
Shall the bill carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Bruce Stanton: (Bill agreed to)
 The Chair: 
Shall I rise and report the bill?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Bruce Stanton: (Bill reported)
 Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole has considered Bill C-90 and has directed me to report the same without amendment.
Bardish Chagger: moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The hon. chief government whip is rising. 
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting in favour. 
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, but we would like to add the Leader of the Opposition, who is particularly opposed to this, along with the rest of us.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.
Mario Beaulieu: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we agree and I will be voting no.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply and votes no.
Hunter Tootoo: Mr. Speaker, I am always extremely pleased to apply and will be voting yes.
Erin Weir: Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply and will vote no.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) 
Vote #971
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Bardish Chagger: moved that Bill C-90, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, be now read the third time and passed. 
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 Nay.
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The hon. chief government whip.
Mark Holland:  Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting for.
Mark Strahl:  Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, with the Conservatives voting no.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply to vote too and will vote no.
Mario Beaulieu: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the votes and will vote against the motion.
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I agree and will vote against the motion.
Elizabeth May: The Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.
Hunter Tootoo: Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.
Erin Weir: Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #972
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Committees of the HouseThe Speaker:  Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #973
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Private Members' Business
The Environment[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 3 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 151 under Private Members' Business.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #974
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Aeronautics Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-392, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act and other Acts (application of provincial law) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-392 under private members' business.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Vote #975
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Hon. Seamus O'Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the government's response to Order Paper Questions Nos. 1998 to 2003.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 29, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Canada Revenue Agency Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ donors), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Speaker: There being no amendment motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
 
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Len Webber (Calgary Confederation, CPC):  moved that Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ donors), be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-316, at third reading.
For those who may not be familiar with Bill C-316, it is a legislative proposal that would allow Canadians to indicate their interest in being an organ and tissue donor through their annual tax forms. It is just that simple.
Right now, the tax forms can only be used for the collection of taxes. This bill would create a legal exemption, just like that made for Elections Canada, to allow this important question to be added to the tax forms.
If we have any hope of getting these changes to the tax forms implemented in time for the 2019 tax year, we need to move this through both the House now and the Senate early next spring. If we miss that deadline, the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, will not be able to implement the required changes for another year. We cannot let that happen. We need to get this done quickly.
This bill was unanimously supported at both second reading and committee, and has progressed from its first debate in the House to its last debate in just 23 sitting days. I think that is a record.
I do want to reiterate my sincere thanks to all the parties in the House for showing such support and offering their genuine co-operation to move this proposal forward so quickly. In particular, I must express a great debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe for the quick progress of this bill. The bill was not actually scheduled to be back for third reading debate until February 25 of next year, but the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe graciously traded his position in the PMB calendar with me to make this debate possible today and to further ensure that this legislation is passed. I know the member for Red Deer—Lacombe is a strong supporter of improving Canada's organ and tissue donation system, and his willingness to help prioritize this bill demonstrates that. His graciousness might be proven one day to have resulted in the saving of hundreds of lives. I sincerely thank the hon. member.
I also want to thank all of my colleagues on the health committee who have been vocal, determined and dedicated supporters of this bill. As I said in the health committee the other day, “I have referred to this bill several times as 'my bill', as it stands in my name, but I do want to say that this is really our bill.” It is our bill, because we worked together in committee as a single team to make it a reality. We found a shared goal and a sensible solution, and worked together to make it happen.
I also want to thank the government, yes, the government, for its allocation of $4 million in funding in the recent fall economic statement to facilitate the implementation of this legislation. Governments do not often commit funding ahead of legislation being passed, especially when for a private member's bill by an opposition member of Parliament. The fact that funding has been committed is very much appreciated and signifies an impressive willingness by the government to see this initiative happen.
I must also thank Mr. Terence Scheltema, my assistant here in Ottawa, for his tireless efforts throughout the entire process of this bill. Without him, this bill would not be before us today.
My final thanks go to my friend, Robert Sallows, a double-lung transplant recipient who recently passed away at the age of 31. He was, and always will be, a hero and a true inspiration.
At the health committee last week, we had an opportunity to hear from CRA officials. They told us that for this proposal to be in place for the 2019 tax season, the legislation needs to be passed by early spring. I think that is quite possible, again, thanks to people like the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.
A few other things became very clear in committee, and I want to talk about them for a moment. First of all, for this initiative to be most effective, the question about organ and tissue donation needs to be placed on the front of the tax form. The committee members made this very clear to the CRA. I was pleased that the CRA has acknowledged this as a priority of Parliament and committed to putting this on the front page.
I also think that the committee process was very informative and allowed the CRA to demonstrate its commitment to making this proposal a reality by working co-operatively with all provinces and territories on this matter. 
The path ahead for the CRA will require a lot of work and dedication by many people to make sure this change happens smoothly. In advance, I want to thank all of the CRA employees who will work on this project for their dedication and persistence. I know there will be days of frustration as small details are worked out and circled back and forth in the consultation process with the provinces and territories. However, when the 2019 tax forms come out and thousands, perhaps millions, more donors register, they will know they have played a key role in saving the lives of some of their fellow Canadians. Therefore, I implore the people at the CRA to dig deep on those tough days and push forward to make sure that we get this done as soon as possible with the highest rate of effectiveness. Their work will have purpose and the results will be rewarding.
One other aspect I want to spend a few minutes on is something the bill does not directly address, but is a significant problem in Canada. Research has shown that as many as one in five potential organ and tissue donors has their final wish overturned by their families at their time of death. That is 20% of families who are overturning the wishes of their deceased loved ones. That is just sad. The decision by their families are robbing those in need of a life-saving transplant of a chance to live. To me, this is unconscionable and has to change. We can and must do better.
It is beyond my understanding how we can allow people to die at a rate of five a week, while at the same time burying, incinerating or putting to rest perfectly good organs every single day. My daughters know I want to be an organ donor, and they know I expect them to follow through on this wish.
As the Christmas holidays approach, families will gather in every corner of the country. I encourage willing organ donors to please speak to their families during this time, to make sure their families know that their final wish is to be an organ and tissue donor, and to let them know how they would feel if they were to find out the family failed to honour their wish.
Throughout my organ and tissue donation advocacy work, both here and in Alberta, I have been approached by many people who have donated the organs and tissues of their deceased loved ones. Every single one of them has made it clear to me that they found the ability to donate to someone in need as a very essential part of their grief and healing process. Their ability to find some good in a time of utter grief and loss was profound and everlasting. Without exception, they encouraged me to let other families know that sharing their loved one made accepting their loss so much easier. 
Their loss has purpose, and their gift has brought unimaginable relief and joy to another family in need. By honouring the wishes of their loved ones, they have allowed grandparents, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers to live. Their gift has meant that many parents have not had to see their children die. That is a legacy to leave for their loved ones. 
We all have our own reasons for supporting this legislation. Some members in the House are living organ donors, the real heroes among us. Some members here have families in need of a life-saving transplant. Some members themselves, or their family members, have medical conditions that they know one day they might require their getting a life-saving transplant. Other members are able to love, laugh and live with loved ones because they got a life-saving transplant and are still with us here today.
No matter members' reasons for supporting the bill, it is very much appreciated. 
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague once again on a creative initiative. He has done something that is done all too rarely in this House: He has reached across party lines, he has identified an issue of importance to Canadians and one that touches constituents of everybody in this House, and he has drafted a very practical and positive measure that is achievable. I want to congratulate him on that one more time.
I have two questions. We did hear evidence at the health committee, and I am sure the member is aware that having a presumed consent system, where all citizens are presumed to be organ or tissue donors unless they choose otherwise, results in very high rates of organ donation in other countries. I am wondering if the member thinks that is a step that this country ought to explore in the future.
Second, does the member believe that the government will co-operate with him in order to make this bill a reality so that we can get this question on Canadians' tax returns in time for the 2019 tax year?
Len Webber: Madam Speaker, on the first question with regard to presumed consent, I believe that if my bill is implemented, and implemented soon, I do not think the requirement for an opt-out system is necessary. I have high hopes that if the question is on the tax forms, which reach likely 90% of Canadians, those who make money and pay taxes, that would be all we need rather than having to go forward to a presumed consent. Of course, if it does fail and people do not tend to sign up on the registries through their tax form, then an opt-out presumed consent is perhaps something that we would need to look into.
With regard to the member's second question, I certainly hope that the government continues to move forward in a positive direction. I am optimistic. The Liberals have provided the money to move forward on this, so I absolutely believe that they will continue to move this forward. I hope it does go quickly in the Senate because there is a deadline from the CRA, as I mentioned. 
Ms. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the work that my colleague has done with regard to this bill, and to congratulate him on the way that he has approached such an important issue in this country with tremendous sensitivity in understanding how this affects families and individuals. I have had the opportunity to see life from such a program and it is remarkable. It is remarkable for those in mourning; it is remarkable for those in celebration.
What can we all do as members of Parliament to help promote this program in the country and in our constituencies, and to make people more aware of the trend that he is setting right here in the legislature today?
Len Webber: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her kind words. I absolutely have witnessed, as well, the joy of seeing somebody wake up after surgery knowing he or she has received a life gift from someone else. It is truly emotional. It is something that affects one and has certainly increased my passion to continue to move forward on organ and tissue donation advocacy.
With regard to what we can do here in the House, I would encourage members to please share with their constituents through their mail-outs and in any way possible, to share with Canadians the fact that it is now on the tax form and to encourage them to please sign up for organ and tissue donation registries. As I mentioned in my speech, sitting around their dinner tables at Christmastime and ensuring that their family knows that their wishes are to donate their organs is so important. I would ask that all members please do that.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, International Trade; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît, International Trade.
Mrs. Deborah Schulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first, let me thank the member for Calgary Confederation for introducing his private member's bill and for his tireless and passionate work on this issue. His personal commitment to this and the co-operative way he has worked with MPs from all parties has moved members of the House, as demonstrated by the unanimous all-party support Bill C-316 received at second reading.
 I would also like to acknowledge the member forEdmonton Manning for his early advocacy on this issue and his private member's bill and, more recent, Motion No. 189, organ and tissue donation, brought forward by the member for Thérèse-De Blainville.
Our government understands that organ and tissue donation and transplantation is an important part of our health care system that relies on the generosity of Canadians to give the gift of life. We know many Canadians, when approached, are willing to be a donor, however, reaching them to get that consent is hit and miss.
We all recognize that more work is needed to address the chronic shortages of organ and tissue donations for transplantation across the country. It goes without saying that transplants not only save lives, but also drastically improve the quality of life for the recipients. In some cases, transplants are the only treatment for end-stage organ failure.
The Canadian Transplant Society notes that more than 1,600 Canadians are added to organ wait-list every year. In 2017, more than 4,333 people were waiting for transplants across Canada. That same year, 2,979 organs were transplanted. 
Over the past decade, the number of deceased organ donors has gone up by 42%, so that is good news. While that is encouraging, unfortunately, the number of people needing a transplant has also gone up during that same time. In many ways, we are not making progress and many people are continuing to suffer.
 Hundreds of Canadians could no longer wait, and did not get a transplant in time. In 2017, 242 people died while waiting for a transplant.
As our population ages, the need for transplants will only increase. Any one of us could one day find ourselves in need of a donation. As I have mentioned before in previous debates on the bill, and I am sorry, I am getting a little emotional, my sons have a very rare genetic condition resulting in serious heart disease. The only option currently for my eldest when his heart fails to pump effectively is to have a heart transplant. I am hopeful for more options in the future through cardiac and transplant research. However, we must do more to ensure Canadians have timely and effective access to the care they need.
That is why the government is standing in support of Bill C-316. By working together, we can improve the organ and tissue donation and transplantation system and ensure that Canadians have timely and effective access to that care.
 Bill C-316 would enact a provision that would authorize the Canada Revenue Agency to enter into an agreement with a provincial or territorial government to collect information required for establishing or maintaining an organ and tissue donor registry in the province or territory.
 Specifically, the CRA would collect and share personal information for individuals who wish to receive information from their provincial or territorial government on becoming an organ or tissue donor. A memorandum of understanding with the willing provinces and territories would need to be signed so the CRA could share information from potential donors. To this end, the CRA would work diligently with provincial and territorial governments to put these agreements in place.
 Canadians can be assured that we are committed to improving the organ and tissue donation and the transplantation system. 
In the meantime, people need to know that registering to donate is not complicated and that registration can be done at any time. We know one organ donor can potentially save as many as eight lives and a tissue donor can improve the quality of life for up to 75 people. This is the gift of life, not only for the individuals with the serious health problems who are direct beneficiaries, but also for their family members and loved ones.
 I want to mention again the significance of this gift of life, as we saw in the Humboldt disaster. I am sure people have heard the stories by the member opposite. 
I have my own story in my own community. A vibrant, loving young mother, an inspired teacher, suddenly lost her life when she suffered a stroke. She had signed up to be a donor and was able to give the gift of life and improve the outcomes for eight other people. Out of one family's pain came joy for eight other families who were forever grateful for her final act of kindness.
Living donors who are at the age of majority and in good health can donate a kidney, part of a liver and a lobe of a lung and continue to lead full and rewarding lives. We know that one donor, as I said, can potentially save up to eight lives and improve the quality of life for up to 75 people. Lives are transformed through these miracles.
 Canadians can count on this government to continue to improve the organ and tissue donation and transplantation system. To demonstrate this commitment, the Minister of Health announced on October 18, 2018, renewed funding of $3.3 million for the Canadian donation and transplant research program, CDTRP. This funding allows the CDTRP to continue its research to advance organ and tissue donation and transplantation in Canada. It is through research that we can increase the availability of transplants for Canadians and transform clinical outcomes for transplant patients from coast to coast. It is absolutely incredible what is being done in research institutions in Canada.
 I had the opportunity to see the work being done in Toronto at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre. They were working on keeping a cow's heart alive outside of the body for weeks, which would provide an opportunity to do external repairs to fix damaged organs and potentially allow for treatments that would not be possible implanted in a body. This is most promising research to be able to make best use of all the organs donated, as many get rejected due to defects or disease.
Our government is committed to supporting Bill C-316. We will collaborate with the provinces and territories upon royal assent to implement this legislation as quickly as possible to be in place for the beginning of the 2019 tax filing season. 
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada. All my colleagues in our caucus and I offer our support to this important bill.
 Canada's New Democrats believe that we must make every possible effort to ensure that every Canadian who needs an organ or tissue transplant receives it. We know that one donor could save up to eight lives and benefit more than 75 people, yet at 18 donors per million people, Canada's current donation rate puts us in the lower third of developed countries. Therefore, I particularly welcome this bill as an attempt to try to remedy that unfortunate state of events, because allowing Canadians to register as an organ donor through their tax returns will no doubt help increase registration rates, improve consent rates and help build a donation culture in Canada.
By way of background, Canadians are currently dying on wait-lists because our organ donation rate is so unacceptably and unnecessarily low. At present, only 20% of Canadians have joined their province's organ and tissue registry. Provinces like Ontario are taking steps to make it easier by asking about organ donations on health card and driver's licence renewals, which has increased registration. However, even with everything in place, some 20% of families refuse to transplant a registered donor's organs.
In its recent study on organ donation, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health learned that of the 4,492 Canadians currently on the wait-list, 260 died waiting for an organ in 2016. In order to better meet that demand, improved coordination across provinces and territories is absolutely required.
Bill C-316, the bill before the House, allows the federal government to coordinate with provinces and territories to allow Canadians to register as organ donors through their federal tax filing. In this case, individuals would be required to consent to the sharing of their information before the agency would share that information with the provincial and territorial levels of government for the purpose of receiving information that hopefully would result in their being added to an organ donor registry.
I pause here to say that, in my view, it would be better if there was a box on everybody's tax return that taxpayers could check off to directly indicate they want to be a donor and the information would go straight to an actual organ donor registry. That is not what this bill does; however, in my opinion, it is worthy of support, because I think it will improve the situation, but I think that a more direct portal and a national registry is ultimately a better way to go.
 Of course, this bill aligns with the long-standing advocacy and legislative work of New Democrat members of Parliament around organ donation. This bill is essentially a version of a previous proposal to create what I just referred to, a pan-Canadian organ donor registry, that would coordinate and promote organ donation throughout Canada. That bill had previously been introduced seven times both by Liberals and New Democrats. Judy Wasylycia-Leis, a New Democrat member of Parliament from Winnipeg, introduced a bill in 2002, 2003 and 2008. Malcolm Allen, who was a New Democratic Party member of Parliament from Welland, introduced a bill in 2009 and 2013. Unfortunately, of those five times that New Democrats have introduced bills to set up a pan-Canadian organ donation registry, neither the Conservative nor Liberal governments have ever taken up that excellent idea that would save lives.
I want to share some facts with members and any of the Canadian public who might be watching this debate. 
While 90% of Canadians support organ donation in concept, less than 20% have made plans to donate. Unlike the United States, Canada does not have a centralized list of people waiting for an organ. The current Liberal government voted against a bill in 2016 that would have supported the creation of a national registry to align with the United States to help identify those wishing to donate an organ and those who need them.
That leaves us with a patchwork of provincial and territorial systems, the efficiency of which varies greatly from province to province. In the case where someone dies outside of the province where the individual is registered for organ donation, it is unlikely that the hospital would be able to identify the individual as a donor. This is one of the reasons that a centralized national registry is so much better.
Online registration is available in only five provinces: my province of British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec. Even if someone is registered as a donor, the family always has the final say. In Ontario, about one in five registered organ donors have their wishes overridden by family members, according to a 2016 report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. 
To put this into perspective, for every patient in Canada who does receive an organ transplant, there are two more on the wait-list. In 2016, over 4,500 people were waiting for organ transplants, 2,800 organs were transplanted and, again, 260 people died waiting for a transplant that never came.
In the past 10 years, the number of deceased organ donors has gone up, but the number of people needing a transplant has also gone up. In fact, over 1,600 Canadians are added to organ wait-lists yearly. While most Canadians consent to donate after death, it is also possible to donate organs while one is still alive. Living donors who are the age of majority and in good health can donate a kidney, part of their liver or even a lobe of their lung. About 1% of Canadians who die in hospital donate an organ, but 99% do not, which works out to about 18 per million, about half the rate in countries such as Spain, which is 34 per million, and the United States at 26 per million.
I want to talk about the presumed consent system, because that is why countries like Spain and other European countries have organ donation and transplant rates that are twice as high as Canada's. It is because they have moved to a presumed consent system, which means that every citizen is presumed to consent to be an organ donor unless they choose otherwise. Individual choice, of course, is respected, but it vastly increases the pool of people who are available for organ donation.
The truth is, as I said earlier, over 90% of Canadians agree with the concept of organ donation, but it is difficult or confusing for them to know how to do that, and so most of those wishes go unexpressed. However, if we changed our system to a presumed consent system, we would have the best of all worlds. We would still respect individual choice for those who, for a variety of reasons, do not want to donate, but we would vastly increase the number of organs and tissue available for donation and hence save the lives of so many more Canadians who are waiting for an organ transplant.
It is funny that Canada is the only developed country without national organ donation legislation such as the 1984 U.S. National Organ Transplant Act. The comments that I am making were borne out repeatedly when we studied this bill at committee, and I will read some of the comments we received from people with respect to a national database.
Dr. Norman Kneteman, professor and director, Division of Transplant Surgery at the University of Alberta said that:
 ...the Canadian Transplant Registry that CBS has built is in place; the computer system exists. The challenge is how we get the information into it. In Canada, all the reporting and transplant and donation in our history has been voluntary, and because of that, it's full of defects; it's not reliable. We have to get beyond that, and we need to be thinking about how we are going to fund the activity of getting the information into the database so the professionals, the researchers...have something to work with. 
The Kidney Foundation of Canada backed that up. It said:
 Currently, there is a lack of data concerning missed donor opportunities in Canada, which stems from inconsistency in the frequency, methods, and scope of data collection between jurisdictions. Furthermore, this data is not centrally accessible to patients on the waitlist, researchers, clinicians, administrators, or policy makers. Current Canadian approaches to measurement and reporting of potential donor identification and referral are fragmented and lack consistency, timeliness and accessibility of information. 
It is rare that one can identify a policy response to a problem that is so obvious and achievable. We need a national organ donor registry in this country. We need a presumed consent system in this country. Why? It is because those two policy initiatives have been identified by all the stakeholders and all the experts. We know that it will increase organ and tissue donation in Canada and save lives. The New Democrats will continue to work towards those ends.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the issue of organ and tissue donation has come up for debate in the House on a number of occasions, and I have found that the debate on this subject invokes more emotion than debates on other subjects, and in a very positive way.
Whether it is the sponsor of this bill or other members who have had the opportunity to address the issue, I have witnessed that it is a very personal issue. I really do appreciate members' willingness to share their stories and thoughts and I recognize their passion. 
I am sure the sponsor of the bill has listened very carefully to what has been said. I want to compliment his willingness and co-operative approach in trying to pass legislation that concerns an important issue to all Canadians.
I was a health critic in the province of Manitoba. Every so often the issue of organ donation would come up. It was an issue of utmost importance, and one on which there was lobbying. At the time, provincial MLAs said that something needed to be put on driver's licences, that maybe people should have to opt out as opposed to opt in to organ donation. All sorts of ideas were put forward as to how we might get more people to participate in organ donation.
I did a quick search on Google to get a better sense of organ donation. Well over 50 lives can be directly affected through the untimely passing of an individual who made the commitment to organ donation. The individual's passing could contribute to 50-plus lives being saved in a profound and positive fashion. When I say “positive”, I mean it could be anything from a life-saving heart transplant to a tissue transplant. The recipient might not be in a life-threatening situation but the donation of either an organ or tissue would be very important to him or her. 
I want to emphasize to those who might be following this debate that we need to work with different jurisdictions. There are certain aspects of this for which the provinces and territories should be at the table. It is important to recognize, as the member across the way has done, that Ottawa needs to play a strong leadership role. My New Democrat friend referenced the importance of having a national registry. That may be something we could strive for.
On a Saturday a few weeks back, I met with a constituent at a local restaurant. The individual was virtually in tears when he talked about his niece who needed an organ donation. She had lived in Winnipeg but had moved to another province. It is hard to think of a young 15-year-old or 16-year-old girl with so much potential having to plead for help. She lives in Alberta and there are special circumstances surrounding the situation. My daughter, who happens to be an MLA, became engaged in the situation. We appealed through some media outlets for help and we are hoping and praying that the appeal will be successful.
There are far too many examples I could cite. I suspect that if we were to canvass all 300-plus members of Parliament, we would hear some very personal stories about how individuals could be assisted, lives could be saved and so forth. 
I truly believe that we are moving forward, but not nearly as fast as we could be on this particular issue. I would like a bigger commitment to co-operate and facilitate something that would be in the national interest in terms of having a data bank from coast to coast to coast. That is ultimately what we should strive to achieve. However, we should not kid ourselves. It is not easy. 
If members do a quick search on the Internet, they will find that different provinces have different approaches. If someone on Prince Edward Island needs a liver or another organ, that person, and his or her family, wants to know that whatever can be done is being done and that it goes far beyond the boundaries of Prince Edward Island. That is something we should strive for. Obviously, there are things in place to assist someone from P.E.I., but it is not as simple as it should be.
The point is that we need more organization, co-operation and collaboration among the different partners. I am referring to the provinces, territories and the federal government. That is what we need on the one hand. On the other hand, we need promotion to make the public more aware. We could talk about the statistics. There is no doubt that in Canada, we could do a lot better in terms of getting more people engaged by stressing how they could impact the lives of others by checking off a box.
Organizations have gone out of their way to simplify the process. For example, in the province of Ontario, there are websites that are very simply designed. It is easy to navigate the system to register. There is a national website. Those who may be following the debate can go to the national website, which links to the many provincial websites so that no matter where people happen to live, they can become directly engaged.
Some of the best known contributions are through blood banks. We talk about the G7 and western countries. In terms of Canada's participation in blood banks and organ and tissue donation, Canada does not fare very well. It is purely guessing on my part that one of the primary reasons is that we do not have a coordinated approach with the different stakeholders. I believe that could ensure that we have the ideal list. We need promotional campaigns and recruitment drives. 
There has to be consent. All parliamentarians recognize the importance of consent. To that degree, it is getting people to buy in and provide their consent the best way we can.
I appreciate what the member is attempting to do and hope that at some point, the bill will pass.
Ms. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-316. I want to start by congratulating the member for Calgary Confederation for bringing the bill forward to the House of Commons and doing it in a manner that sought the support and input of many Canadians, and members of the House as well.
The bill itself recognizes the value of organ and tissue donation and transplantation and the important role that plays in protecting the health and safety of Canadians. I think all of us at some point or other in our lives have known people who have been confronted with that situation, whether a family with a loved one who is on a wait-list, or someone else needing an essential organ or transplant for their future survival and ability to continue to live a good quality life, or a family that has to deal with the grief of losing a family member and is faced with a difficult decision at the time of their sudden death. That cannot be easy. I think we have all heard of many of these stories and situations. 
The bill allows people to reflect upon their own lives and those of others around them. It gives them the opportunity to make a very important decision on what will happen to their organs and tissues upon their death, so those kinds of decisions are not left to others and family members at a time of tremendous grief. 
My colleague, the member for King—Vaughan, who spoke earlier was very emotional in her speech, but was certainly able to relate to this particular situation in a way that many of us cannot. She talked about her own family and how this issue has hit the heart of it, with the emotional decisions and trauma of having a family member who might need an organ transplant at some point, and their reflections on that decision. Obviously, this bill will go to heart of what many Canadians and many families might face in this difficult situation they might face in the future. 
We also know that the bill before us today is one of the pieces of legislation the Minister of Health and our government have been following through on in their mandate. The minister has been working with provinces and territories on this very legislation to try to facilitate some collaboration, some partnership, across the country when it comes to an organ and tissue donation and transplantation system that would give Canadians timely and effective access to the kind of care they need. 
I think most of us who listened to our colleague from the NDP cite the statistics of the numbers of people currently on wait-lists for organ and tissue donations and transplantation and of those who have died waiting can agree that far too many people are still on those wait-lists. 
We can also agree that far too many Canadians die waiting, waiting for organ and tissue transplants that are necessary for them to continue to live and have a good quality of life.
I do not think any Canadian wants that to happen. It is all our responsibility to allow for a system that will ensure more people become organ donors, that there is a system in place to allow those who need transplants to get them. It is all our responsibility as Canadians that if we can bring life to someone, we bring life to that person.
In my riding, I have a very close friend and a family that went gone through such an experience. The family was faced with the decision upon the death of its son, which was very sudden, on whether to donate his organs for transplantation. That was a difficult decision, one I cannot even imagine. At a time when his parents were already shocked, heartbroken and in despair, they made a decision that their son's organs would be donated and used for transplantation.
Just recently, they had the opportunity to meet an individual who received one of those organs, an individual who today is enjoying a good quality of life, bringing joy to his family, to his grandchildren, watching his grandchildren and his children continue to grow and be a part of their lives.
As difficult as it was for her, her husband and her daughter at that time, knowing that in some way their son had been able to give this gift of life helped them through what had been one of the most tragic and difficult situations in their lives. It has helped them look at grief in a different way.
It was probably a couple of weeks ago when I was listening to CBC Radio's The Current one morning. She was on the radio, talking about this situation and so was the recipient who had received the heart as part of that donation. It was one of the saddest yet most inspiring stories I had heard in a very long time.
I do not think any of us wish for any family to be placed in that situation. By allowing this as a question, as a part of the Canada Revenue Agency work that it does through the application process, in reaching out to all Canadians, creating that awareness and allowing Canadians to make that decision to become a donor, we not only give them a sense of comfort in the decision they make, but we give their families a sense of comfort as well. Hopefully, at the end of the day, we are able to bring light to more Canadians who need it.
I am happy to support Bill C-316. I know many members of the House will, including government members. I am proud of the fact that as a government we have already stepped up to do many of the things outlined in the bill. In addition, we have been able to invest more into research related to transplantation, this year it is $100 million additional, to ensure these transplantations are successful.
We are continuing to work with research agencies, with science, along with families to ensure we can improve the system of organ and tissue donation in Canada.
Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-316. I would like to thank the member for Calgary Confederation for bringing this forward.
One of my friends once told me that the best speeches are given from the heart, that it is not about great notes or somebody who writes us a good speech. My speech today is coming from the heart. I am going to tell a little story about Nick. I did speak to Nick and I asked him if I could speak in the House on why this was so important and why it was important to him.
I first met Nick 21 years ago when he showed up at my door with my oldest son. He was an eight year old. As soon as he walked into the house, I noticed he was coughing. I asked him if had a really bad cold and he said, no, that he had a chronic disease called cystic fibrosis and because of that he had a hard time breathing and a lot of digestive problems. He explained the whole disease to me. Nick became a huge part of our lives. He was my son's best friend through his whole time growing up. 
Nick's medication was kept in our cupboards. Oftentimes Nick would spend the night and he needed it to survive. Nick would come to the cottage with us and he would bring his breathing machine and his medications, but he never let it slow him down. There were a couple of times as Nick was growing up that he ended up in intensive care in the Halifax hospital because of his condition. A number of times we sat our son down, because they were very close, they had been friends since they were very young, and we told him we did not know if Nick would get out of the hospital. We had those conversations and we always knew it was a possibility. It was always really tough, when dealing with a young child and our own kids, trying to explain to them that this could happen.
Nick was amazing. He continued to beat the odds and he got out of the hospital both times. I remember when the Children's Wish Foundation asked him what his wish would be. Unfortunately, at that point in his life, he was very sick. He said that what he really wanted to do was make memories with his best friends. Therefore, Nick, my son and one of their other friends went to the big city for the weekend. The foundation gave them money to go shopping. They went to movies, ate steaks and they made memories. To this day, at 29 years old, when they get together, they still talk about it. It was just such a wonderful thing.
However, as everyone else was moving on, going to school and getting degrees, Nick was struggling more and more as he got older. Nick continued to go to university. He would oftentimes go for a semester and then have to take a semester off because he was too sick to continue. His dream was to become an architect. He continued to go to university and then he would take time off because of his health.
 About a year and a half ago, Nick got very sick. I remember talking to him and him saying to me, “It's like I'm breathing through a straw”. If we think about that, how would that feel? Every breath we take and feeling like we are breathing through a straw.
Nick was put on the waiting list for a double lung transplant and he continued to deteriorate. One of the challenges for individuals who are that sick is having to deal with this. We live in a province that does not do transplants. Nick had to go to Toronto to have this transplant. His family needed $20,000 to be raised in our community in order for him to live there while he waited. Unfortunately, Nick ended up in intensive care on life support, waiting, because he was failing so badly. 
However, this is a great news story. In July, Nick got a double lung transplant. It was a 10-hour surgery. He was on life support before the surgery. He is doing great. He is out of the hospital. He is back home. He says that he will never take for granted every breath he takes. One of the things he is also very cognizant of is that somebody else died in order for him to have the transplant.
 It took almost two years for him to get a lung transplant. It is so important for us to sign donor cards and to ensure we have bills like this that will encourage more people to become donors so people like Nick are not left waiting for two years.
I am really pleased Nick is doing as well as he is. I want to thank the member opposite for the bill. It is very important that we continue to support these initiatives, that we continue to work with the provinces and territories and ensure we play a leadership role in transplants, ensuring they are available to people.
 It would be great if there were some way we could also support people financially so the communities do not have to raise as much money to send people to places like Toronto for their surgeries.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The member actually has five minutes left, which she can have the next time this matter is before the House.
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper. 

Adjournment Proceedings
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved. 
Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to revisit a question I asked the Prime Minister earlier in the year regarding our supply managed farmers and the trade deals the government has signed, more specifically, the new United States-Canada agreement. 
The three main pillars of supply management are control of the price, control of the production and import controls. If any one of those three pillars is affected, then like a three-legged stool, the system cannot sustain itself. 
We know that the system was created in the 1970s to deal with price fluctuations. Today we can thank it for employing 348,000 of our fellow Canadians, contributing $6.9 billion in tax revenues and contributing $29.6 billion to Canada's GDP.
However, if we look at the trade deals the Liberal government has signed, the CETA, the CPTPP and now the USMCA, we see that despite the Liberal agriculture minister standing in this House and repeatedly talking about how he supports the system, the Liberals keep partitioning off parts of the market that we hold so dear. If we look at the dairy sector, with CETA, we lost 1.4%. Under the CPTPP, we lost 3.1%, and now, under the USMCA, it is 3.6%. If we add that all up just for dairy, it means that a total of 18% of the Canadian market will be imported dairy products, which will result in an annual loss of $1.3 billion.
 When we ask Canadians about their thoughts with regard to our farmers and locally produced goods, they say, in overwhelming numbers, time and time again, that they prefer buying Canadian and supporting Canadian farmers. 
I asked the Prime Minister if he was prepared to make concessions on the trade deal, and he said at the time that he was not going to reveal the government's negotiating strategy. Of course, we all know now that the Liberals have been partitioning off parts of our supply managed sector. However, Canadians overwhelmingly support it.
 One of the basic tenets of trade is that we seek a good in return for something we do not produce. Canadian farmers are more than capable, with our population of 35 million, to produce the eggs, produce the chickens and produce the dairy products we require. Furthermore, Canadians are more than prepared to support their local farmers to do that. 
We know that the supply managed sector contributes to local food security. In my province of British Columbia, it represents 40% of agriculture. It is unique. It is the largest sector of any province in this country.
What I want to draw to Canadians' attention is that one party in this House has consistently stood up to defend supply management, and that is the NDP. I am very proud to be able to stand in this House as our party's agriculture critic to say publicly to our supply managed farmers that I am here, I support them and we will continue to call out the Liberal government on the parts of their market it is selling off to foreign interests.
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising this important issue. The government strongly supports supply management, dairy producers and the Canadian dairy industry. Canada's supply management sectors are essential parts of a strong, prosperous agricultural sector.
On September 30, Canada reached a historic trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. The new agreement means stability and security for our farmers when trading with their largest customer to the south, and it means a strong foundation for growth in the future. With this agreement, we have maintained the tariff-free access to the American market for Canadian exports that we have enjoyed under NAFTA. That is good news for the 1.9 million Canadians whose jobs depend on trade with the United States. For our farmers and food processors, we have protected our $30 billion in agri-food exports to the United States.
Throughout the negotiations, our government worked extremely hard to advance the interests of Canadian farmers and food businesses. We know that they are primary economic drivers for this country. We know that they create well-paying jobs, particularly in our rural communities. At the same time, we fully recognize that the agreement will impact farmers and processors under supply management. 
It is important to remember that this U.S. administration was calling for the complete dismantlement of the supply management system. Our government defended and preserved our system from these very strong American attempts to see it dismantled. The Prime Minister has stated that our dairy, poultry and egg producers will be fully and fairly supported for any market losses. 
Before we do that, we need to sit down with producers and processors. That is why we have formed working groups for industry and government to develop strategies for the short term and the long term. Our common goal is to help our dairy, poultry and egg sectors innovate and drive our economy for future generations.
Alistair MacGregor: Madam Speaker, our farmers are paying the price for the Americans' overproduction problems. The state of Wisconsin alone produces more milk than our entire country. 
Supply management receives no tax incentives. It actually operates on its own. I am sick and tired of our farmers being used as a bargaining chip any time the export-driven model of the United States has a problem. They are looking for a new market for their overproduction problems.
Furthermore, in the United States, their dairy industry uses bovine growth hormone. We do not know if that is going to be present in the milk. We know it causes serious problems for cows in the dairy industry. For animal rights groups and those who are concerned about the health and welfare of animals, we do not know what is going to be in our milk.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to check with supply managed farm groups, because they are more than angry at the Liberal government. I think he is quite out of touch with the reality on the ground.
Mr. Omar Alghabra: Madam Speaker, there is no question that there are challenges we need to address, and I appreciate the opportunity to do that in this House. However, with challenges come opportunities. The Canadian dairy industry is doing great work in growing markets through branding, collaborating with industry and harnessing innovation. 
Our government is proud to help Canada's dairy industry lead the way in innovation and technology. We are investing $350 million in programs to help dairy producers and processors boost production and compete. The program is designed to support the productivity and competitiveness of dairy farmers through targeted contributions and to help the sector adapt to the anticipated impact of the new agreements. The producer portion of this investment is $250 million for the dairy farm investment program. That is why I want to emphasize and stress the point that our government continues to support our supply management industries.
Veterans AffairsMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Madam Speaker, before I get to the topic of my late show question, I do have to say that it is disappointing this evening to again see the government talk out, and therefore deny, the opportunity to expedite a good private member's bill. Bill C-316 was debated tonight, and it would have been excellent if that debate had been allowed to collapse so that we could have ensured that it would meet the CRA deadline to get organ donor information included on tax forms. However, as we have seen on a number of occasions from this government, it insisted on filling the time and thus not allowing this good private member's to pass, even at the risk of the bill not now passing in time before the next election.
Nonetheless, I do want to address the issue of Christopher Garnier tonight. This issue has really captured the attention of Canadians. He is a person who received veterans benefits even though he never actually served in the Canadian Armed Forces. He received benefits related apparently to PTSD he acquired as a result of his commission of a terrible crime. The crime was the murder of Constable Catherine Campbell, who did serve her country as a volunteer firefighter and a police officer.
This obviously offends the sensibilities of veterans, as well as all Canadians, who were shocked to learn that someone who had committed a crime in Canada and never served in the Canadian Armed Forces was and is receiving benefits that are supposed to go to Canada's veterans. The government at the time did not provide meaningful answers. Subsequently, in response to our questions and advocacy, the Liberals have brought in policies that, hopefully, will prevent this kind of situation from happening again. Obviously, that is a positive step, but it remains the fact, as far as we know and have been told, that Mr. Garnier continues to receive those benefits.
Notwithstanding any policy changes in the future, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary about this specific case. Does he believe that Mr. Garnier should be receiving these benefits, which arise not from his service to this country, but rather from the apparent PTSD he got as a result of his terrible crime of murdering Constable Catherine Campbell? Does the parliamentary secretary believe that Mr. Garnier should still be receiving those benefits? Does he believe that? If he believes Mr. Garnier should not be receiving those benefits, then why will the government not act to ensure that in this specific case those benefits will not continue? If he does not believe that, maybe he should explain why he believes this person should still receive those benefits.
Again, should Christopher Garnier continue to receive benefits from Veterans Affairs despite never having served his country?
Mr. Stéphane Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, from the very beginning, the opposition has been asking the same questions and we keep going over the same topics.
To begin with, I want to say that our hearts go out to the family of Constable Campbell. It was a heinous crime that never should have happened. As my colleague knows full well, we cannot comment on specific cases for privacy reasons. However, this gives me an opportunity to explain some things that might help my colleague understand this case a little better.
When soldiers with the Canadian Armed Forces serve their country, their entire family also serves. Travel, the decisions involved and separation are all factors at play. We take a holistic approach to the well-being of our soldiers. That is why the programs and benefits offered through Veterans Affairs Canada are extended to veterans' family members. The support offered to a veteran's family also contributes to the veteran's well-being. This includes psychological support and services related to PTSD and other mental health problems. 
Mental health treatment best practices confirm that family members of veterans may need treatment. It can happen. Mental health services can become compromised if they fail to take into account the impact of a veteran's mental health on the family or the family dynamic.
Under extenuating circumstances, any treatment recommended for family members of veterans will be reviewed by an area director and a health professional. This is a new policy. It was brought in at the minister's request.
I can assure the House that Veterans Affairs Canada has made changes to certain decision-making processes. Effective immediately, treatment recommendations for family members of veterans that are in the care or custody of a correctional institution will be reviewed by both Veterans Affairs Canada and a health professional.
Services received within a professional institution will be the same as those provided by Veterans Affairs. In any event, the person will receive treatment either from an institution or Veterans Affairs Canada.
When we offer help to members of a veteran's family, whatever it might be, our priority is always the veteran's well-being. The health and well-being of all members and veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces are central to all of the programs and services. That includes mental and physical health. That is why Veterans Affairs Canada is funding a network of over 4,000 mental health professionals across the country so that veterans who need those services have access to them.
The department is also funding a 24/7 toll-free assistance service, which enables veterans and eligible members of the RCMP to get counselling, bereavement support and referrals.
In order to better meet mental health needs, our government is investing $17.5 million over four years to open a centre of excellence on PTSD and related mental health conditions. This centre will provide new knowledge and best practices to front-line health professionals across the country who help veterans and their families every day.
Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, my colleague said that he could not talk about the specifics of this situation, so I will present a hypothetical situation and ask if he thinks this hypothetical person should receive benefits from Veterans Affairs. 
In a hypothetical case, we have a person who never served in the armed forces, who apparently has PTSD, not as a result of any service or service involving a family member but as a result of a terrible crime he committed here in Canada. In this hypothetical case, does the parliamentary secretary think this person should be receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada, yes or no?
Mr. Stéphane Lauzon: Madam Speaker, no matter what services we are providing veterans, we are providing them to their whole family.
Our hearts go out to victims of crime. I think I speak for everyone when I say that. In our decisions about what services and support to provide to a veteran's family member, our priority is always the veteran's well-being. Difficult decisions must often be made. When we want to help a veteran, we must also help the family. The ultimate objective is for every decision to be made in the best interests of our brave veterans.
This government has invested more than $10 billion over the past three years in benefits, services and additional programs for veterans and their families. We are not done. We will continue to support veterans and improve the services and support they receive.
International TradeMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House to stand up for farmers across Canada, especially the people of Salaberry—Suroît, who work tirelessly to feed the people in our region and also just to survive. Unfortunately, that is the reality they must face. They are just surviving and do not earn a decent living from working the land.
The NDP supports farmers and is determined to preserve the integrity of the supply management system and the Canadian dairy system. For years, we have been calling for the full protection of the supply management system. Unlike the Liberals and the Conservatives, we believe that Canada should not have made concessions in the CETA negotiations with the European Union, or in the TPP negotiations, or in the recent negotiations between Canada, the United States and Mexico.
Mr. Trump was expecting Canadians to accept similar concessions because the Conservatives and the Liberals had already made them in the two previous negotiations for the TPP and CETA. Unfortunately, the U.S. got their concessions.
The Liberals made some significant concessions. In total, these three agreements signed over three years account for a 10% breach. This is the equivalent of about one month of a farmer's income. Farmers have said that they are having to forgo 28 days of income because of these three international agreements. I do not think anyone in this House would easily give up a month's worth of work.
Furthermore, in the latest agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico, access to Canada's dairy market was expanded by 3.6%. The Canadian government abandoned class 7 and is also allowing a new dairy product, diafiltered milk, to enter the Canadian market. Canadians fought to say that we should prioritize Canadian milk. They said that when other classes are allowed to cross the border, it is harder to know where the milk in our products comes from.
As a result of all this, farmers will lose more than $200 million in revenue a year, and the agreements will also limit supply-managed exports to levels lower than they were in 2017.
The government also signed away its sovereignty by giving the Americans oversight of the classification of dairy products. Farmers are strongly opposed to this. They never expected this to come up in the negotiation.
The Liberals claim to defend supply management and say they are going to offer compensation programs, but so far no such program has been offered to farmers following negotiations with the U.S. 
As for the meagre compensation offered last summer, it was the middle of July and it was handed out on a first-come, first-serve basis. Farmers fell off their chairs and said that it made no sense, because it did not meet their needs and it really was not fair for all the farmers who were busy working in their fields. Nobody could make head nor tails of it. The Liberals understood and acknowledged that it was ad hoc and that they should not have gone about it like that, but they still have not offered farmers an alternative.
How is this going to help attract young people to farming?
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade Diversification, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the government understands the importance of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector to our economy, our trade and our jobs. Our negotiators worked hard to advance Canadian agricultural interests at the table. The Canada-United States-Mexico agreement preserves existing agriculture commitments in North America and helps grow an already highly integrated industry. This agreement maintains the three pillars of supply management: production controls, price controls and import controls. 
The Government of Canada strongly supports Canadian dairy, poultry and egg farmers, and our supply management system. Around the world, our supply management system is viewed as a model of stability. It provides a fair return for farmers, a predictable supply for processors, and high-quality dairy, poultry and egg products for consumers.
 Canada's dairy, poultry and egg producers and processors are vital to the prosperity and sustainable growth of our nation and are an integral part of Canadian agriculture. Production and processing activities contribute to multiple other industries, all of which help support local economies and create vibrant rural communities. 
Promoting trade and maintaining our supply management system are not mutually exclusive. Canada has a proven track record of negotiating high-quality free trade agreements with major trading partners while maintaining the pillars of supply management. Through CETA, the CPTPP and the renegotiation of NAFTA, the biggest free trade deals in Canada's history, we have been able to preserve, protect and defend our supply management system. 
The government stands strongly behind the dairy, poultry and egg industries, and together we will work to assess the impacts of the new NAFTA and CPTPP on the sectors. To this end, the government will continue to work with dairy, poultry and egg farmers and processors as part of the government's recent commitment to form working groups that will discuss the details of the recent agreements and collaborate to develop strategies to help them adapt, innovate and remain competitive.
Surely, the hon. member does not want us to make decisions on the compensation before consulting farmers.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Madam Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary is saying today is completely contradictory.
He says the Liberals protect and preserve the supply management system. However, in their three years in power, they have signed three trade deals that have collectively opened up a 10% breach in the supply management system. For farmers, that amounts to a month's salary being given away in the last three trade deals.
How can the parliamentary secretary talk about stability? How can he say the system is working? How can he talk about compensation when no timeframes or programs have even been announced?
Yes, the Liberals are holding consultations, but that is not going to save jobs. The agri-food sector provides one in eight jobs. Dairy farms revitalize our regions, maintain local jobs, keep young people from moving away, and create jobs and SMEs.
The Liberals are slowly hacking away at all that because they have no vision.
Mr. Omar Alghabra: Madam Speaker, I understand the anxiety my colleague is expressing. I want to repeat that supply management is an integral part of Canadian agriculture. I can assure her that we have protected and defended it, and we will continue to protect and defend it. 
Trade is essential to the success and competitiveness of our agriculture industry. That is why the government is looking to expand opportunities and to advance the interests of Canadian farmers by negotiating trade agreements and modernizing existing ones. 
The government is committed to working with the dairy, poultry and egg sectors to develop a path forward to ensure our supply-managed sectors remain strong, stable and competitive well into the future. The government's support for supply management has been consistent. We will continue to be consistent in supporting our supply-managed sector.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
 (The House adjourned at 5:36 p.m.)